Ben Hitchcock v. United States

Good Law
580 F.2d 964·1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9482
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 18, 197877-1915California1,065 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallace, J.

Hitchcock appeals the denial by the district court of his motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We find that his claims are not cognizable under section 2255, and we therefore affirm.

I.

In April of 1971, Hitchcock was a prisoner in the custody of the State of Arizona. He claims that on April 21 he was arrested and searched by agents of the Internal Revenue Service. It does not appear from the scanty record, however, that he was removed from his quarters or the custody of the state prison officials. On June 23,1971, he was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 287 by making fraudulent income tax refund claims against the United States. Pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum he was taken from state prison on July 12 and brought before a magistrate in connection with those charges. Thereafter he was returned to state custody to await trial. Hitchcock was eventually convicted in federal court on six counts of making fraudulent claims.

On January 31, 1977, Hitchcock filed in the district court a document denominated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Since it was addressed to the same federal court that had sentenced him, the petition was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.